Owen Doyle: World Rugby’s disciplinary system remains clearly inadequate

Should the punishment fit the crime, and what about victim impact statements?

Over the last few months we’ve seen nothing to suggest that World Rugby’s disciplinary system for foul play has made one jot of a difference. The solutions are staring World Rugby in the face – tougher sanctions are needed, it’s simple.

The tackler leading with the shoulder to the head of the opponent, the dangerous clear-outs at ruck time . . . well, they haven’t gone away. Rugby is crying out for a robust, meaningful system of sanctions for red cards. Across the globe, serious foul play continues week in and week out, it’s hard to keep up with it all. It’s nauseating.

This past weekend alone saw Munster’s Jean Kleyn in trouble against Leinster – yellow – and Toulouse’s Antoine Dupont was hit hard to the head, for which La Rochelle’s Reda Wardi did get a red. And no doubt there were other incidents too.

The Counter Ruck: the rugby newsletter from The Irish Times

---

Ulster’s turnaround under Richie Murphy

---

Munster must guard against complacency as they look to see off Ospreys at Thomond Park

---

Dan Sheehan: ‘Ulster do a great job of suffocating you in your own half ... we need to impose our game on them’

---

But let’s look at two which have recently seen the full rigour of the system.

Connacht’s Bundee Aki received a correct red card, delivered by Italian referee, Gianlucca Gnechi. It resulted in a serious injury – Seabelo Senatle of the Stormers being the unfortunate victim. Aki did not take the ref’s decision lying down and vigorously pursued him to voice his disapproval, adding insult to injury.

Aki’s previous reds were also taken into consideration, and the decision was an eight week suspension, with a reduction of one week permissible for attending a coaching lesson. Heck, it’s nothing short of ridiculous. You have to wonder what attention is paid to technique in normal training. If his action was the only option Aki could see available to him, then, in reality, there was no option.

Here’s how the judiciary came up with the eight weeks.

Ten weeks for the seriousness of his actions, with two (only) added for his previous record. That total of 12 was then reduced by four weeks due his remorse, apology and acceptance of the decision. Considering his dissenting behaviour on the pitch, that was a U-turn of Liz Trussian proportions. But, hey, never mind.

For those who see the suspension as sufficient, please ponder for a moment on the collective Irish blue murder fury if one of our players was injured in a similar fashion; and that fury would be absolutely justified.

We witnessed another injury in the New Zealand and Australia game. Australia player Darcy Swain side-entered hard into a ruck into the legs of Quinn Tupaea. This type of leg-targeting has been specifically addressed and outlawed by World Rugby, and it screamed red card.

Mathieu Raynal strangely left it at yellow, but luckily the citing commissioner saw it differently and a judicial hearing followed.

Despite the fact that Tupaea has a ruptured medial ligament, and is out for the season, just a six-week suspension was the verdict, which took into account that Swain had been sent off earlier in the summer, for a headbutt, against England. Otherwise the suspension would have been far less, about three weeks, the judiciary deeming the offence mid-range.

So, what does a high-range offence look like, I’d love to know, and does the punishment fit the crime? No.

World Rugby needs to get rid of the risible ‘remorse’ reductions, or balance the books by introducing victim impact statements, and consider these, together with the outcome of foul play in terms of injury, in determining appropriate suspensions.

That the punishment must fit the crime seems reasonable and logical. But it would need a real sea-change, by World Rugby, to change the docket. Don’t hold your breath on this one.

In that same match, the referee was centre stage for another decision. The Wallabies were on the verge of a famous win – defending desperately, they had just won a penalty.

Bernard Foley started his short run to kick to touch, but the referee intervened. Foley had apparently taken too long and Raynal, deciding that ‘enough was enough,’ blew the whistle and denied him the kick to touch.

New Zealand won the subsequent scrum, and then, inevitably, scored the winning points. There is a golden rule in refereeing: no marginal or debatable decision should decide the result. This one most certainly did. Let the players decide the outcome, barring a clear cut offence which, of course, must be whistled.

While there are two sides to any debate, I am firmly in the camp that Raynal – despite his clear warning – should have kept the whistle in his pocket, added the time on, and let Foley kick to touch. The delay did nothing to prevent New Zealand from contesting a potential final lineout, so they had lost zilch by the delay, not disadvantaged in any way.

Somewhere in the past mists of time Connacht were denied a crucial victory over the Ospreys when the referee ludicrously awarded the Welshmen a full penalty (which was the last-minute winning kick) for delaying a drop-out. At that time the clear consensus was that the decision was nonsense, for the birds in fact.

By all means we want to speed up the game, but not – please, please – at the expense of common sense.

RC ‘Ray’ Williams

Ray Williams, in a truly splendid career, refereed 21 top class internationals from 1957 to 1964, a record at the time. Very highly respected by all international teams of that era, the iconic All Black captain, Wilson Whineray, invited Williams to referee three of New Zealand’s five Tests during their ‘63/’64 tour of the UK and Ireland. He also refereed two Five Nations matches in that same season, altogether a quite remarkable achievement. A true legend of Irish rugby refereeing, Ray Williams passed away recently, peacefully, at home. He was in his 99th year. RIP.